If George Washington had not been sitting in the room, it’s likely many of the delegates to the federal convention of 1787 would have supported a multi-executive model for the new Constitution, rather than a solitary president. After all, just upstairs in the Pennsylvania State House where they met that summer was the chamber where the Pennsylvania executive council met, led by a president who they changed annually. But Washington’s unquestioned integrity, submission to civilian rule over the military, and willingness to lay down his sword after the war gave the delegates a picture of an energetic executive, yet one who could be trusted to guard the liberties of the people. No one doubted that he would be the first to take the oath of the new office, and so the presidency was made in Washington’s image.

Unfortunately, after 1799, characters like Washington were in short supply. If Barack Obama had been sitting in Washington’s chair, the American story would have been — in Obamanese — “fundamentally transformed.” When Republicans and other Americans react with almost knee-jerk resistance to Obama’s executive overreach, it’s not personal … it’s historical.

I’ve spent the past year and a half studying the U.S. Constitution, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, as well as a dozen or more books and many primary source documents from the period of the Founding through the ratification of the Constitution, so that I could write the new PJTV video series Freedom’s Charter. This quest has made me read the daily news in a new light.

We revolt, at least inwardly…

When he makes recess appointments (to the National Labor Relations Board and to the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) while the Senate is not in recess;

When he does through bureaucratic regulation what he cannot accomplish legally through persuasion of the people’s legislature;

When he stands before the Congress, the nation, and the Supreme Court, as he did during a State of the Union address, and publicly rebukes the Court for a decision he didn’t like;

When he initiates overseas military adventures (i.e., Libya) without congressional approval;

When he campaigns around the country saying “we can’t wait” for Congress to act, and instructs his cabinet to do everything they can without Congress, because he wants to spend more borrowed money on more social experiments, despite the demonstrated failure of his previous experiments.

When he erects “a Multitude of new Offices, and [sends] hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance.”

(That last one actually referred to King George III … at least, originally.)

In 1787, folks clustered in little towns up and down the eastern seaboard looked to their local papers in vain for word of what was happening with the delegates in the Assembly Room in Philadelphia. The only “press release” to emerge during the four months of deliberations that produced our Constitution attempted to quell a pernicious rumor: “Tho we cannot, affirmatively, tell you what we are doing; we can, negatively, tell you what we are not doing–we never once thought of a king.”

Well, that’s technically accurate. However, on June 18, 1787, New York’s Alexander Hamilton delivered a five-hour speech to the formally dressed delegates shut up indoors during a sweltering Philadelphia summer. Among other ideas, Hamilton proposed an elected executive (who he called “the Governor of the United States”) who would serve “during good behavior,” like Supreme Court justices do — effectively for life. In other words, Hamilton called for an elected monarch. His proposal was met with stony silence and a motion to adjourn.

46 Comments, 26 Threads

1.
Pragmatist

Obambi and the Deem’O'Crats are doing their best to try and have their cake and eat it. But no matter what they do an “Illegal MANDATE” remains an ‘Illegal MANDATE” no matter who the MANDATE applies to. To paraphrase a previous President “Its the MANDATE stupid”. So just changing the MANDATED suppliers of the FREE Contraception from the Catholic Church to the Insurance Companies does nothing to change its ILLEGALITY. Can someone also explain what SICKNESS pregnancy is that it needs MANDATED FREE contraception for. If he gets away with this what else will he Mandate being supplied FREE Cellphones……..Ooops he already does that too.

Also, I understand that for some time, after ratification, that the federal government mandated firearms ownership; not sure about mandatory firing range practice but that would have made sense. Now, that’s one mandate I’d agree with, especially if it came with discounts on the purchase of firearms and its ammunition.

Not sure why this mandate wasn’t continued since it makes sense to me.

The thing I hate most about Obama are all his “czars.” This is the worst power grab by Obama in his attempt to circumvent Congress. And Congress is wrong here because THEY should be the ones to stop the funding for all the “czars.” Congress still should have the “power of the purse” and they should stop funding these people, and if the “czars” come out of the President’s budget (which I doubt), Congress should withhold the money to the President until he agrees NOT to fund the Czars. Keep the czars, no money. Simple. I constantly wonder why Congress is so eager to give its power up.

Actually, I think our next president should take advantage of the precedent set by Obama and appoint many czars, each one focused on a different federal agency and whose job it is to devolve, deconstruct, and dismantle it.

Actually, Congress already defunded a few of the “czars”. Obama signed whatever bill zeroed out their budgets, and added a “signing statement” saying he refused to accept the authority of Congress in setting the budget.

So, basically, he said he’s not bound by the Constitution. I suspect the only reason Congress didn’t impeach him for that is that too many of the Democrats really, really want a dictator.

democrat or a republican…seems so irrelevant when both sides of the parties are so corrupted and ripping off the American people by not doing their jobs according to the constitution!! they are serving their own Secret agendas like the agenda of the “secret terror watch list!! this is the targeting of our government against anyone who opposes their secret self-serving agendas!! it’s this that is not right!! we didn’t elect anyone who wants to be a super-hero !! Just someone to do a job defined by the CONSTITUTION !!!

I agree, Libertyship… what the heck IS CONGRESS DOING?? I don’t get it. We replaced what 66 of the old farts up there with some new blood, and I thought, thank God, now let’s see some real change (back to the more conservative way). You know, like defunding obamacare, among other things they need to be doing. Has anyone at all up there even addressed the issue of companies closing and/or moving out of America because of the high corporate tax rate? Why doesn’t congress DO SOMETHING?!! But my biggest question still is, WHY HASN’T OBUMMER BEEN IMPEACHED?!! Seriously, is our current system so corrupt that they have accepted this obama-style hoodwinking as the norm, and are now immune to it, or what? I just am getting so fed up and disgruntled about the whole situation, I’m ready to fight. Semper Fi, a retired U.S. MARINE

Nobody, but NOBODY, is willing to go down in history as the person who led the impeachment of our “historic” first “black” president. Nobody wants to be the one to set off a vicious bloodletting in the streets of every major city in America. As it is, we’re going to be looking at massive rioting if Obama loses in November. That is exactly what the Left wants. Read Bill Ayers’ playbook sometime, from his Weather Underground days. The idea was to set off a black-vs.-white race war in America, which would create so much chaos that Ayers and his commie pals could jump into the power vacuum and seize power. That is what communists DO. They don’t give a rat’s ass about how many lives are lost. Recall that Obama’s playbook — Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” — is, after all, dedicated to “the first rebel”: LUCIFER. Yes, these people truly are demonic.

Actually compared to Obama et al George III was a rather benevolent ruler. He spent less money on himself than Obama does; he did not use tax money to enrich his appointed businessmen; he stayed pretty much in Britain and did not spend lavishly on foreign travels. This fourth of July when Obama is bleating some new ridiculous political crap fresh from his communist handlers I think I will be saying “God Save the King”.

I think people are basically stupid and, yes, they would rather have a monarch. This stems from the obvious reversal of direction that the culture has taken back to its instinctive values and away from the values and traditions that were built, and put into the rule of law by our founders, by the need to accommodate the rise of larger cultures and a more advanced division of labor. The rise of political power of the collectivist(instinctive) ideologies attests to this and, once again, mankind is regressing toward another protracted dark age of poverty and disease and despotic government. The fact that some, such as this writer, are rediscovering the essence of our Constitution is the very case for recognizing the political ascendance of the more primitive governance of the tribal age and, correspondingly, the crumbling of the free market economy. In short, we elected Obama and, as they say, here we go. ABO2012

I almost think that it’s a side effect of our Celebrity-Worship culture.

People saw the way everyone fawned over the British Royals (never mind that they have little-to-no bindin power), and wanted Royals of their own to give the celebrity treatment to.

Look at the constant media ass-kissing of Michelle as she spends more and more taxpayer money on herself. Using your money for her own personal business, and she’s covered as if she’s the fusion of Princess Di, Oprah, and Hatshepsut.

Meanwhile, Emperor/Mafia Capo/Avatar of God Barry keeps having a neverending stream of “L’etat, C’est Moi.” moments, and the media bows down to kiss his ring.

National media — i.e., media that concentrate on “national issues,” mainly meaning politics in Washington — are pernicious to a federal republic. They look for “concentration points:” persons or institutions with whom to collaborate on which issues to cover and what the significant points are. Because the president is a single individual, and because his staff answers to him alone, he has a natural edge in wooing such media. Once won to his beck and call, he can use them to shape political thinking with an efficiency other organs of the federal government cannot match.

Unfortunately, there’s little to be done about it. Leader figures not in office have little with which to counter the presidential dynamic. Which suggests that just about the only thing that might be done to counter-weight the presidency is to strip the office of all its organs of communication, and make it an obligation of the office that the president himself wear a custom-fitted gag from the moment of his inauguration to the day he steps down for good!

Johann -”This fourth of July when Obama is bleating some new ridiculous political crap fresh from his communist handlers I think I will be saying “God Save the King”.

Why wait? Obama is now setting the “obstuctionist Congress” narrative once again and sending his minions out to do the work on the MSM; his ‘budget proposal’ of course, needs this! This is getting very tiresome and juvenile … Obama is no king … so don’t flatter him with that one.

The Obituary of the U.S.A.
In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinborough, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior: “A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote
themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.
From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.”
“The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years.
During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.”
The Obituary follows: Born 1776, Died 2012.
It doesn’t hurt to read this several times. Beware of politicians who want to give the masses who don’t want to work–and are living off various forms of government welfare free handouts.
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota, believes the United States is now somewhere between the “complacency and apathy” phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation’s population already having reached the “governmental dependency” phase.
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals–and they vote–then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.
Remember, too, that “apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.”
Please be sure to pass this message on to everyone in your address book.
As Dietrich Bonhoeffer from Germany in Hitler’s time said, “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote
themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.”

I believe the Frenchman, Alexis de Tocqueville, said nearly the same thing, roughly 40 years before Mr. Tyler, when he was talking about the future of American democracy.

The Obituary of the U.S.A.
In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinborough, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior: “A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote
themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.
From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.”
“The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years.
During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.”
The Obituary follows: Born 1776, Died 2012.
It doesn’t hurt to read this several times. Beware of politicians who want to give the masses who don’t want to work–and are living off various forms of government welfare free handouts.
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota, believes the United States is now somewhere between the “complacency and apathy” phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation’s population already having reached the “governmental dependency” phase.
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals–and they vote–then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.
Remember, too, that “apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.”
Please be sure to pass this message on to everyone in your address book.
As Dietrich Bonhoeffer from Germany in Hitler’s time said, “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

Obama has but one agenda and it should be obvious to anyone with even moderate intelligence. He is out to 1. Destroy America and 2. to establish himself as president and dictator for life. The guy is nothing more than a petty hood in a cheap and bad fitting suit .

I was taught we had a system of “checks and balances”. Why hasn’t our congress grown a pair and stopped this Man who would be King? Where is the Supreme Court in voicing concerns of the legality of these edicts? We know the lap dogs of the main stream media are useful idiots for the regime and are caught up in there own celebrity,but where is the outrage from the people? Too busy watching American Idol and Dancing With The Stars. God help us.

Yet, let not us judge least we be judged ourselves! So, in light of that old saw, let’s fire all of them and then after the fact, bring back those we trust. This is a much safer way to take care of this most pressing issue. Now, the real problem is how to deal with those senators who are not up for re-election in 2012! Realistic suggestions, anyone?

John,
Not to defend the Congress too much, but consider, that moderates comprise about 40 to 45% of the electorate. The hard left is about 20% and the committed right is probably about 25 to 30%. The moderates determine the elections by combining their votes with the other two factions.

If more than 2 Conservatives meet and discuss an issue, they are immediately labeled as radicals. The Republican House has been doing exactly what they were elected to do since 2010–with holding funds from Obama, as much as possible. For this they are now the obstructionists to Obama’s program to save the economy. This view is held, apparently, by a large majority of voters, who also consider the Republicans in Congress generally too radical. If a Republican makes a public statement pointing out the trampling of the Constitution that Obama is so aggressive at doing, they are considered disrespectful by most of the moderates.

The Republican candidates who are Conservative, clearly, do not stand a chance of being elected, because they offend the moderates.

So, what else would be expected of the Republicans? For my money, it is the American people who are demanding acceptance of corruption and showing preference for Socialism. It could be ignorance, but the different in ignorance and disinterest will take us to the same place.

I have reached the point that I now am holding out hope that a sufficient number of the moderates are actually planning to vote for a Republican candidate, but are not saying so, because they know they erred in 2008. And, that an additional number may not actually be aware that there is an election this year, which would benefit the nation considerably. Otherwise, I fully expect to be mandatorily watching daily speeches by Obama on a permanent basis and seeing the spectacular uniform that he and Michele will have designed for him in December of this year.

Yes, it is depressing, but at least we can put the blame where it belongs–on the huge group of moderate Americans who just don’t care; or, possibly, instead think that Socialism may be very cool.

Just write, write, write, from our dear author, but, the thing–so I think–which this–simply another article–misses is that, we live with a government of flaws because, just too few will to object in meaningful ways. And for perennial example, a usual set of prejudicial grand jury selection arrangements assure that, in the discretion and person of a prosecuting attorney, govt shall be molded in the image of some man, . . . maybe such as E. Holder.

Then too, there’s the govt school system which churns out a citizenry with minds to one dead likeness blent, who ne’re even in dreams have seen, the things which are more excellent.

Oh, and there’s the loss of representative governance in the 17th Amend.

What would we do if Barack Obama canceled the elections under some form of Marshall Law and refused to leave or he loses the election and refuses to leave? This is not an easy question to answer. You might think we would force him to leave, but how? This is all very farfetched, I hope. But how would we act if this scenario where to occur?

Remember the media & Democrat uproar over Nixon’s “Imperial Presidency?” Yes, Nixon had feet of clay but at least he had the decency to go. See the difference with Obama: The main stream media hated Nixon but seem orgasmic over Obama. “A Slobbering Love” affair one commentator labelled MSM infatuation with Obama. The First Amendment protects freedom of religion as well as freedom of the press. What right does Obama have to compel a legitimate religious organization to violate its fundamental beliefs? Will the MSM be so loving when Obama or some future President compels it to present a particular political view point hostile to their nearly monolithic ideology? What is next? President for Life Obama?

Obama and individuals like him are out to fundamentally change (a nice way of saying “destroy”) our Constitutional Republic.

The result will be a very much different America with very few individual freedoms, very little chance to excel individually, and a much harder, more restricted, and less prosperous life style for my children and grand children.

That makes it very personal.

In addition, I took an oath to protect and defend the US Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC, and bear true faith and allegiance to the same (as did Obama) and when I see him and others destroying it before my very eyes, the oath I took to defend it makes it very persnal.

Finally, I promised my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, upon taking His name upon me when I accepted Him as my personal Savior, to try and live as He would live, to try and keep His commandments, and to teach the same and witness for the same to my family, neighbors, friends, relatives, and those I meet. When Obama tramples my fist amendment rights to do so…that makes it very personal.

In the end, we Americans are going to have to stand and stand firm, and we may well (if we do not run such people out of office very soon) have to stand in a similar fashion as our founders, with arms against tyranny and at great personnel cost…

I’m glad it’s not personal for you. I have tried not to feel personally about it, but I do. I am not only coming to detest Ø as a person, despising his ethics, manners, and ideology, but also the people who still support him after all this. Not long ago some athlete made the news for refusing to give Ø some ceremonial respect, maybe shake his hand or something. Well, I’m not likely to get the opportunity, but I wouldn’t shake his hand either.

Yes, Obama is out to dismantle the United States. As it stands the US cannot become part of the UN’s global government objective (see Campaign for a UN Parliament). It is too different. The US has to adopt the EU form of governance and mirror its bureaucracy for the global agenda to proceed. The UN’s objectives are working at the municipal level as ICLEI absorbs more and more cities into its organizations. However to “transform” the whole of the US, it has to have a strong central government with “commissioners” or “czars” as you call them in charge of each department. States should not have any rights at all other than to send representatives to vote on large federal matters. Once Obama has turned the United States into a European construct it will be simple to just join Canada and Mexico to it and then cut the whole pie into UN biodiversity “regions” such as Cascadia (the left coast), Great Lakes Region, Gulf Coast etc. Each region would send representatives to the UN Parliament. The upper house would consist of NGO’s and civil society who would block any legislation threatening social justice, the environment, food, water etc. etc. And you think I’m kidding.

While I do not know Obama to dislike him, his repeated power grabs and efforts to suppress dissent have illustrated that I must beyond rejecting policy reject Obama personally as a tyrant in the making. This totalitarian compulsion is an innate part of his character; and it, and thus Obama personally, are at best unAmerican and at worst the cornerstone of history’s next vile tyranny and shocking atrocity.

I have always though obama is the emperor with no clothes and no one ever takes the place of the little kid who tells the truth! Obviously, the Republican hierarchy will not do so. Will it take a nut like Ron Paul to utter the words? That’s one reason I support Cris Christie….he seems able to express what so many of us are thinking. Here in Arizona the governor supposedly insulted the office of the president. If the man is not worthy of any respect and has done virtually no running of the government(except runniung it into debt) why should anyone worry about ‘respecting the office’. The office should not be getting respect….It’s the man in the office who should be respected. Obama has done nothing to gain the respect of Americans and he shows no respect for the office, the American people, our long time allies, our treasury or much of anything. He is in perpetual campaign mode. He and his minions run rough shod over our constitution and virtually everything we believe in. I keep hoping a knight will come riding into the Republican convention on some powerful steed but I aqm beginning to lose hope.